Advocates:
['THOMBRE CHANDRAKANT V', 'CAVEAT FILED BY ADV M R ANDHALE', '', 'COPY SERVED ON GP']

1 W.P. 10821.2012

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 10821 OF 2012

Kalawati Sopan Jadhav V/s The State of Mah. & Ors.

Office Notes,Office

Memoranda

of

Coram,appearances,

Court's orders or

directions

and

Registrar's orders

Court's or Judge's orders

................................

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.

DATE : 03/01/2013.

Mr. C.V.Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. V.B.Ghatage, A.G.P. for the State.

Mr. M.R.Andhale, Advocate for Resp. No. 10.

.............................

PER COURT :

1.

Some of the respondents have moved requisition with

the Tahsildar for convening the special meeting for passing no

confidence motion against the petitioner, who is Sarpanch of

Gram Panchayat, Waghe-babhulgaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.

Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar issued notice convening the

special meeting. The special meeting was held on 18/10/2012.

In the said meeting, the resolution of no confidence was

passed against the petitioner by majority of 9 members out of

11 members. The petitioner assailed the said resolution before

2 W.P. 10821.2012

the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector dismissed

the Dispute. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is

filed.

2.

Mr. C.V.Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that respondent No. 14 had demanded voting by secret

ballot. As respondent No. 14 had demanded voting by secret

ballot, it was mandatory for the Tahsildar to conduct voting by

secret ballot. In stead the voting was done by show of hands.

Such act vitiates the proceedings and the meeting. The learned

counsel relies on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of

this Court in the case of Jabin Akhtar Shirgonkar and others

V/s Samshad Iqbal Mukadam and others reported in 2006

(2) Mh. L.J. - 555.

3.

The learned counsel further contends that four (4)

members of the Gram Panchayat are disqualified as they have

not submitted the validity certificate within the stipulated

period as laid down U/s 10 (1) (a) of the Bombay Village

Panchayat Act. Non submission of the validity certificate

within stipulated period would dis-entitle the said four (4)

members from voting in the said meeting. The dis-qualification

would be attracted retrospectively.

4.

The learned counsel further contends that the grounds

3 W.P. 10821.2012

raised for passing no confidence motion were totally false. The

work has been carried out by the petitioner diligently. The

petitioner, on the date of the meeting, could not remain

present as she was not keeping good health and was having

high blood pressure.

5.

The learned A.G.P. and Mr. Andhale, the learned counsel

for respondent No. 10 support the order.

6.

As far as voting by secret ballot is concerned, Rule 33 of

the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules [ For short, ' said

Rules ' ] deals with the procedure for election of Sarpanch and

Up-sarpanch. Even the said Rules apply to the elections of

Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch, so also in respect of passing of no

confidence motion. The relevant rules lay down that if the

majority of the members demand voting by secret ballot, then

the voting has to be carried by secret ballot. In the case of

Jabin Akhtar Shirgonkar referred supra, the issue was, whether

the voting by secret ballot would vitiate the process. In light of

that, the learned Single Judge of this Court had